| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/03/2012 11:50:33 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by markwiley:
I am completely confused, but I have entered the challenge. It will be interesting to see everyone's interpretation of the challenge topic. It may be disheartening to see voters' interpretation of my entry. |
Everyone gets a 5.5! |
I remember the abstract motion challenge I got a 6.0ish and was at 95%ile. There be tough voting ahead...
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 11:45:59 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
I am completely confused, but I have entered the challenge. It will be interesting to see everyone's interpretation of the challenge topic. It may be disheartening to see voters' interpretation of my entry. |
Everyone gets a 5.5! |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 11:44:53 PM · #3 |
| I am completely confused, but I have entered the challenge. It will be interesting to see everyone's interpretation of the challenge topic. It may be disheartening to see voters' interpretation of my entry. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 11:33:44 PM · #4 |
im excited to see the entries..
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 11:29:41 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Neat:
You are confusing everyone.........lol |
You failed to find a recognizable element in that paragraph? ;-) |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 11:27:05 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by tvsometime:
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Originally posted by tvsometime:
Where does your definition of abstract come from? In the art world as well as the English dictionary, "Abstract" generally means "...little of no pictorial representation.." so unless the people are exempt from the definition, they could not be recognizable. |
Cursory look around the web:
[/i]
Aside from the third one I found, nothing about being unrecognizable is essential to the definition of abstract. Unless I'm missing some universal definition, which doesn't seem to exist, looks like people can be recognizable if the other elements of abstract are present.
CS |
Nothing in what you found on the web contradicts the basic definition of "abstract" even as defined in the dictionary. Your findings describe some of the "abstract" characteristics of an image but don't specifically address "representation", which is the realistic, "recognizable" reproduction of something real or recognizably real.
Art history is a progression from the "realistic" in the 19th century into abstraction early in the 20th century. Kandinsky is considered the first purely "abstract" painter. He himeself spoke of it. The web will tell you more, and what you will observe is that Kandinsty's paintings contain no "recognizable" elements.
Picasso lead the way to abstraction, but in moving from generally representational painting into abstraction and cubism he once said (paraphrased) that he always included a recognizable element to draw the viewer into the image which could lead to a more expansive understanding of the abstract elements. Picasso's art was not strictly abstract as now defined.
You have described many of the elements of "abstraction" but your research has not addressed the representional aspect, which is clearly absent from truly "abstract" art. |
You are confusing everyone.........lol
Let the best pic win!! |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 11:18:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Originally posted by tvsometime:
Where does your definition of abstract come from? In the art world as well as the English dictionary, "Abstract" generally means "...little of no pictorial representation.." so unless the people are exempt from the definition, they could not be recognizable. |
Cursory look around the web:
[/i]
Aside from the third one I found, nothing about being unrecognizable is essential to the definition of abstract. Unless I'm missing some universal definition, which doesn't seem to exist, looks like people can be recognizable if the other elements of abstract are present.
CS |
Nothing in what you found on the web contradicts the basic definition of "abstract" even as defined in the dictionary. Your findings describe some of the "abstract" characteristics of an image but don't specifically address "representation", which is the realistic, "recognizable" reproduction of something real or recognizably real.
Art history is a progression from the "realistic" in the 19th century into abstraction early in the 20th century. Kandinsky is considered the first purely "abstract" painter. He himeself spoke of it. The web will tell you more, and what you will observe is that Kandinsty's paintings contain no "recognizable" elements.
Picasso lead the way to abstraction, but in moving from generally representational painting into abstraction and cubism he once said (paraphrased) that he always included a recognizable element to draw the viewer into the image which could lead to a more expansive understanding of the abstract elements. Picasso's art was not strictly abstract as now defined.
You have described many of the elements of "abstraction" but your research has not addressed the representional aspect, which is clearly absent from truly "abstract" art.
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 23:19:20. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 09:08:30 AM · #8 |
| I am definitely struggling with this topic. It is am interesting topic, but I am struggling to figure out how to tackle it. And the clock is ticking... |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 12:19:41 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
These are all good abstracts of people. But not "abstract with people." IMO of course. |
even though I can't enter to this challenge, it's pretty confusing for me!
seems like there will be tons of blurry people with this one... |
Hopefully not. Blurry people is an easy out & there's nothing wrong with a nice sharp abstract nude. Comps with nothing recognizeable are not likely to hold my interest very long, but who knows? I'm hoping for a bunch of interesting comps to vote on, that might inspire us to some amazing comments. "D |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 11:10:52 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by tvsometime:
Where does your definition of abstract come from? In the art world as well as the English dictionary, "Abstract" generally means "...little of no pictorial representation.." so unless the people are exempt from the definition, they could not be recognizable. |
Cursory look around the web:
Abstract photography can produce very dramatic images. It relies on our more primal sense of form, color, and curves than it does on detail.
an abstract photo depicts a real life subject in an unnatural way.
Abstract photography is photography which contains a design of patterns or shapes where the identity of a subject is not easily evident.
Abstract tends to be more about shape and form, and sometimes texture and color, than about subject matter.
Aside from the third one I found, nothing about being unrecognizable is essential to the definition of abstract. Unless I'm missing some universal definition, which doesn't seem to exist, looks like people can be recognizable if the other elements of abstract are present.
CS |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 11:06:49 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Neat:
Originally posted by tvsometime:
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Originally posted by Neat:
So not many entries, are people just confused with this challenge?
Also who thinks the person/people need to be recognisable in the image? |
Technically, the people can be recognizable. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the definition of abstract.
CS |
Where does your definition of abstract come from? In the art world as well as the English dictionary, "Abstract" generally means "...little of no pictorial representation.." so unless the people are exempt from the definition, they could not be recognizable. |
But it will be the 'Where's Wally' challenge all over again, and we will all be trying to look for where the people are.
'twill be interesting, at best.
I can just imagine the voting on this :( |
|
|
|
|
05/02/2012 10:50:47 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by tvsometime:
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Originally posted by Neat:
So not many entries, are people just confused with this challenge?
Also who thinks the person/people need to be recognisable in the image? |
Technically, the people can be recognizable. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the definition of abstract.
CS |
Where does your definition of abstract come from? In the art world as well as the English dictionary, "Abstract" generally means "...little of no pictorial representation.." so unless the people are exempt from the definition, they could not be recognizable. |
But it will be the 'Where's Wally' challenge all over again, and we will all be trying to look for where the people are.
I can just imagine the voting on this :( |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 10:33:10 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Originally posted by Neat:
So not many entries, are people just confused with this challenge?
Also who thinks the person/people need to be recognisable in the image? |
Technically, the people can be recognizable. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the definition of abstract.
CS |
Where does your definition of abstract come from? In the art world as well as the English dictionary, "Abstract" generally means "...little of no pictorial representation.." so unless the people are exempt from the definition, they could not be recognizable.
Message edited by author 2012-05-02 22:34:27. |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 10:21:06 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Originally posted by Neat:
So not many entries, are people just confused with this challenge?
Also who thinks the person/people need to be recognisable in the image? |
Technically, the people can be recognizable. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the definition of abstract.
CS |
Totally agree, and that's how I will be voting. |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 10:01:16 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Neat:
So not many entries, are people just confused with this challenge?
Also who thinks the person/people need to be recognisable in the image? |
Technically, the people can be recognizable. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the definition of abstract.
CS |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 09:59:08 PM · #16 |
So not many entries, are people just confused with this challenge?
Also who thinks the person/people need to be recognisable in the image? |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 04:53:00 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by lobrin:
Originally posted by jomari:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
It looks setup in Photoshop but not abstract. |
I agree. |
why its not abstract.. ? its an idea not real..! |
This is not abstract, otherwise every composition in photoshop would be abstract. |
I think so.. that is the reason it is Advance Editing. to become more challenging.. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 04:44:18 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
These are all good abstracts of people. But not "abstract with people." IMO of course. |
Which is the difference? If they are of people they should be with people too. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 03:32:01 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
These are all good abstracts of people. But not "abstract with people." IMO of course. |
even though I can't enter to this challenge, it's pretty confusing for me!
seems like there will be tons of blurry people with this one...
Message edited by author 2012-05-01 03:33:00. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 03:24:52 AM · #20 |
These are all good abstracts of people. But not "abstract with people." IMO of course.
Message edited by author 2012-05-01 03:25:12. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 03:14:59 AM · #21 |
pick your idea... all from DPC (duh)
Message edited by author 2012-05-01 03:16:24. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 03:06:07 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
If abstract has no recognizable shape how do we recognize the essential people? |
Yes, it's entertaining to think about what is an Abstract Person(s), visually. If it's not a woody, what is it? Is Barbie an abstract female? |
To me woody and Barbie are simplified representations of people, not their abstractions. |
Well...partly serious, partly whimsical
if an abstract is the result of reducing something to its essentials, then isn't a woody also a physical abstract as well as a representation of a human? The 2 things don't cancel each other out. Or do they?
Please post an example of an abstract human that might be relevant to this challenge.
Is this an abstract of a human?
And yes I think it's true that the act of photography is an act of abstraction. Every composition should contain only the bare essentials, like good poetry. But that does not mean that the resulting photograph will be abstract. The photo has it's own existence, apart from that of the bit of reality it was abstracted from.
Message edited by author 2012-05-01 03:18:26. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 03:01:16 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by lobrin:
Originally posted by jomari:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
It looks setup in Photoshop but not abstract. |
I agree. |
why its not abstract.. ? its an idea not real..! |
This is not abstract, otherwise every composition in photoshop would be abstract. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 02:51:34 AM · #24 |
Mmm, okay. If we're defining abstract like that, then that leaves plenty of room for us to play in.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2012 12:08:28 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by jomari:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
It looks setup in Photoshop but not abstract. |
I agree. |
why its not abstract.. ? its an idea not real..! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 04:29:26 AM EDT.
